Gujarat High Court High Court

Chaudhari vs Thro’ on 23 June, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Chaudhari vs Thro’ on 23 June, 2011
Author: A.L.Dave, Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1249/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1249 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

CHAUDHARI
SHAKIL HUSAIN ALI - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

THRO'
PP & 5 - Respondents
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR.
HARDIK J JANI for
petitioner. 
MR KL PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent :
1, 
MR HB SINGH for Respondent(s) : 2, 
None for Respondent(s) :
3 - 4, 6, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
5, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/06/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

The
petitioner and respondent No.2, corpus, are before us. We have talked
to both of them.

2. Respondent
No.2 has stated that she does not want to go and stay with the
petitioner, but she wants to go and stay with her father. She has
indicated that there is no element of any detention or confinement of
any nature. The cause-title of the petition indicates that the corpus
is aged 21 years. However, the order passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, dated 12.5.2011, in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 152/2011, indicates that the date of birth of the
corpus is 26.8.1993, as emerging from the School Leaving Certificate,
which is found to be genuine by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate. Therefore, also it would be appropriate that the corpus
stays with her parents, they being her legal and natural guardian.

3. In
light of the above factual scenario, this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus cannot be entertained and stands dismissed. Rule
discharged.

4. Rs.10,000/-

deposited by the petitioner, shall be refunded to him.

[A.L.Dave,J.]

[Bankim
N.Mehta,J.]

(patel)

   

Top